McEnerney

People v. McEnerney

Good Law
112 Cal. App. 609·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1111·297 P. 568
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 17, 1931Docket No. 1612.California1,782 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

The defendant was convicted under a charge of grand theft, he made a motion for a new trial, his motion was denied and he has appealed from the judgment and order and has brought up typewritten transcripts.

For several years prior to 1924 the defendant was an attorney at law practicing his profession in San Francisco. On September 25, 1924, he was appointed administrator of the estate of John Quinn, deceased, and thereupon he qualified and continued to act as such administrator until he was removed by an order of court and Eugene Quinn was appointed in his place on August 18, 1926. About one month prior to that date the defendant was adjudged insane and was committed to an asylum where he remained for several months and then he was released and a short time after he was restored to competency August 14, 1930.- Other facts will be stated in connection with the point to which those-facts are specially pertinent.

The attorney for the defendant has filed a masterly brief in which he has set forth many points, the facts contained in the record which give rise to the point, and his authorities applicable thereto. The prosecution does not dispute the soundness of many points but…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.